Disposed¶53

Sri. Gurumurthy. R v. Sri. Prakash. G

Karnataka HC8 Oct 2025MFA/460/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partition suit; joint family property; temporary injunction; restraint on alienation; Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC; Order 39 Rule 4 CPC; Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC; Section 151 CPC; prima facie case; balance of convenience; Cubbonpet property sale proceeds; Kogilu property; sale deed dated 14.05.2012; PW-1 cross-examination; disposal within one year; MFA No. 460 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka; Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J.; O.S.No.1929/2024; XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

Appeal disposed of without interfering with the Trial Court's temporary injunction restraining alienation of the suit schedule properties; Trial Court directed to dispose of O.S.No.1929/2024 expeditiously within one year from receipt of a copy of the order; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶53

Sri. Gurumurthy. R Vs Sri. Prakash. G — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court's order dated 08.11.2024 allowing I.A.No.1 (temporary injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties) and dismissing I.A.No.3 (vacation of injunction) calls for interference in this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The Trial Court was correct in observing that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience, and in passing the order directing the defendants not to alienate the suit schedule properties.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Whether the suit schedule properties were purchased out of the sale proceeds of the Cubbonpet property, and hence are joint family properties, is a matter to be considered at trial before the Trial Court.

¶43

Key takeaways

There is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court granting the temporary injunction.ratio¶48
A specific direction was issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MFA (CPC) under Order 43 Rule 1(r) r/w Section 151 CPC by defendant Nos.1 to 3 against order dated 08.11.2024 on I.A.Nos.1 and 3 in O.S.No.1929/2024 (XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru CCH-36), whereby the plaintiff's temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC restraining alienation of the suit schedule properties was allowed and the defendants' application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to vacate it was dismissed. The plaintiff's partition suit rests on the contention that the suit properties (Kogilu) were bought from the sale proceeds of the Cubbonpet property sold on 14.05.2012, to which sale deed the plaintiff was a party. Held: the Trial Court rightly found prima facie case and balance of convenience; whether the properties are joint family assets is a matter for trial; no interference with the injunction order was warranted; Trial Court directed to conclude the suit within one year from receipt of copy of the order. Appeal disposed of. Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar J. (single member, oral judgment).

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:39600 MFA No. 460 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.460 OF 2025 (CPC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. GURUMURTHY. R AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE C RAMANNA, NO.1838, 3^RD MAIN, 23^RD CROSS, C BLOCK, SAHAKARINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 092

¶9

Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT K P UMADEVI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O GURUMURTHY R, NO.1838, 3^RD MAIN, 23^RD CROSS, C BLOCK, SAHAKARINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 092

¶11

SMT PAVITRA G AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O SHYAMSUNDAR, D/O GURUMURTHY R, NO.1838, 3^RD MAIN, 23^RD CROSS, C BLOCK, SAHAKARINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 092

¶12

…APPELLANTS

¶13

(BY SRI. G V DAYANANDA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39600 MFA No. 460 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

SRI. PRAKASH. G S/O GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.62, SHREE SAI KRUPA NILAYA, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, SONNAPPALAYOUR, VIRUPAKSHAPURA, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE – 560 092

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. GIREESHA.R.J, ADVOCATE FOR C/RESPONDENT)

¶20

THIS MFA FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 AND 3 IN OS.NO.1929/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CCH-36, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND DISMISSING THE IA.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

Though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶25

This appeal is filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3 challenging the order dated 08.11.2024 passed on

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39600 MFA No. 460 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

I.A.No.1 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with

¶29

Section 151 of CPC and I.A.No.3 filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC respectively in O.S.No.1929/2024 on the file of XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru¹ (CCH-36), thereby the application I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff was allowed and application I.A.No.3 filed by the defendants was dismissed.

¶30

For the sake of convenience and easy

¶31

reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶32

The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. Upon the application filed by the plaintiff, the Trial Court has passed an order allowing I.A.No.1 and granted an order of temporary injunction directing the defendants not to alienate the suit schedule properties. This order is under

¶33

challenge in this appeal.

¶34

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39600 MFA No. 460 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the Trial Court by assigning the erroneous reasons allowed the application and granted an order of temporary injunction and dismissed the application of defendants filed for vacating the order of injunction stating that the defendants have not produced the Wills dated 31.01.1964, 01.03.1967 and 09.12.1978, but there is no Will dated 31.01.1964. Hence, submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court was erroneous.

¶38

Whatever may be the fact that there might not have been the Will dated 31.01.1964, but in the written statement contentions are that there is a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1964. There is mentioning in the written statement that one Narasamma, who is the grandmother of the plaintiff was enjoying the suit schedule properties and executed the Will dated 03.01.1979 in favour of Sharadammma. Sharadamma is the mother of defendant No.1, and the said suit schedule properties were sold to one A.S Jagadish on 14.05.2012, for which, the mother of

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39600 MFA No. 460 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

defendant No.1 signed as consenting witness. The plaintiff is a party to the said sale deed dated 14.05.2012. It is contention of the plaintiffs that out of sale proceeds, the suit schedule property in Kogilu was purchased. Therefore, when it is purchased out of the sale proceeds of selling the property situated at Cubbonpet, the suit schedule property amounts to joint family property. Hence, filed the suit and submitted that this was correctly considered by the Trial Court and passed an order of temporary injunction.

¶42

Now, the dispute is regarding whether the suit

¶43

schedule properties are joint family properties or not. Though the plaintiff has put signature to the sale deed dated 14.05.2012, as per the submission made by the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, the suit schedule properties were purchased out of the said sale proceeds. Hence, this is a matter for trial to be considered by the Trial Court. Therefore, the Trial Court is correct in making observation that the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience and the order passed is

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39600 MFA No. 460 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

directing the defendants not to make any alienation of the suit schedule properties.

¶47

It is submitted that now the matter is set down

¶48

for cross-examination of PW-1; therefore, the trial has begun, and hence, considering the factors contended in the plaint by the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were purchased out of sale proceeds of the suit schedule properties situated at Cubbonpet. This is the question to be considered in the suit. Hence, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, a specific direction is issued to the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within time frame that would meet the requirements of both the plaintiff and defendants. Hence, considering the submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties that now the stage set is set down for cross-examination of PW-1 in the suit, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditious as possible within a period of one year from the date of copy of receipt of this order.

¶49